Tag: nuclear energy

  • Ukraine’s Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility: a well-calculated project or an unwarranted risk?

    Ukraine’s Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility: a well-calculated project or an unwarranted risk?

    2006 Chernobyl NB 3
    Photo credit: Bellona

    Concerns have been raising among environmentalists and nuclear power engineers as Ukraine continues the loading of used fuel into the into the containerized dry storage systems of the new Chernobyl Interim Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility (ISF-2).

    Designed by Holtec International, the project poses dangerous risks to the global environment, and here is why.

    According to the official website of Holtec International and John Heaton’s presentation at the “ELEA – Holtec International” Congress, the U.S. company claims to have some competences and expertise in storing the nuclear energy waste. Among them are: technologies for the construction of dry storage facilities of the CISF type for the temporary storage of containers with spent nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes; the reliability of the storage facilities that is ensured by a dry climate system, which prevents corrosion of structural materials and excludes the ingress of water into the waste tanks. Finally, the company already has its own functioning storage.

    However, the Holtec International has no expertise in building large, capacious storage facilities for long-term (more than 50 years) storage of spent nuclear fuel in a humid and cold climate, with a pronounced change of seasons.

    For 6 years of work on the territory of Ukraine, “Holtec International” has so far the only one achievement concerning the loading of the two double-walled tanks with spent nuclear fuel from the RBMK reactor in the Interim Storage Facility (ISF-2) at the Chernobyl NPP site. It is shown that containers with nuclear waste are placed in the ISF-2 building that is already under operation, and not in a dry storage facility of the CISF type. In addition, the arrangement of tanks in the ISF-2 storage facility is horizontal, not vertical (i.e., it does not correspond to the American technology of storage of tanks), and it is not known what risks and consequences this may lead to. For this reason, the launch of ISF-2 by “Holtec International” specialists was delayed, since it was not known in advance whether it would be possible to safely place the canister in the storage facility.

    According to the study by Ukrainian experts, Ukraine’s 15 reactors – all of which were built while the country was still a republic of the Soviet Union – supply more than half of the domestic electricity supply. This means that reactors built during the Soviet era in Ukraine has more trust among nuclear power engineers rather than an ambitious U.S. project.

    Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky, during the negotiations over the project last year, said Ukraine would embrace nuclear power as a national priority.

    “In the coming years, many countries will work against nuclear power generation,” he said. “We, on the other hand, will defend it. We must do this because today we have every opportunity to be among the first [in nuclear energy], both in Europe and in the world.”

    But at the same time the Ukrainian government is creating an extremely dangerous situation for the global environment and its border neighbors.

    By entrusting the project to a company with no experience in building large nuclear storage facilities and limited scientific and technological base for the elimination of nuclear accidents and the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel planned for accumulation, the Ukrainian authorities might yet but provoke an uncontrolled environmental disaster that might dramatically change the Eurasia’s landscape.

  • Turkey expects to acquire Japanese know-how on nuclear energy

    Turkey expects to acquire Japanese know-how on nuclear energy

    88352Turkey intends to sign, this spring with Japan, an agreement on cooperation in the nuclear energy sector, Turkish FM Ahmet Davutoglu stated in an interview with Japan’s leading economic periodical, “The Voice of Turkey” informs.

    Davutoglu noted that, “they believe in Japanese technology and its safety,” yet again stressing a readiness to cooperate.

    Turkey’s FM also said accordance was reached toward continuing the talks on Iran’s nuclear program.

    Incidentally, even though Turkey constantly calls for the international community to apply pressure on Armenia to close down the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant, Turkey itself is building several nuclear plants in seismically active zones.

    via Turkey expects to acquire Japanese know-how on nuclear energy | Armenia News – NEWS.am.

  • Is Armenia’s Nuclear Plant the World’s Most Dangerous?

    Is Armenia’s Nuclear Plant the World’s Most Dangerous?

    Marianne Lavelle and Josie Garthwaite
    For National Geographic News

    Published April 11, 2011

    This story is part of a special series that explores energy issues. For more, visit The Great Energy Challenge.

    Steam rises from the cooling towers of Metsamor nuclear power station in Armenia in September 2010. One of the last old operating Soviet reactors built without containment vessels, its location in a seismic zone has drawn renewed attention since Japan's earthquake-and-tsunami-triggered crisis.

    In the shadow of Mount Ararat, the beloved and sorrowful national symbol of Armenia, stands a 31-year-old nuclear plant that is no less an emblem of the country’s resolve and its woe.

    The Metsamor power station is one of a mere handful of remaining nuclear reactors of its kind that were built without primary containment structures. All five of these first-generation water-moderated Soviet units are past or near their original retirement ages, but one salient fact sets Armenia’s reactor apart from the four in Russia.

    Metsamor lies on some of Earth’s most earthquake-prone terrain.

    In the wake of Japan’s quake-and-tsunami-triggered Fukushima Daiichi crisis, Armenia’s government faces renewed questions from those who say the fateful combination of design and location make Metsamor among the most dangerous nuclear plants in the world.

    Seven years ago, the European Union’s envoy was quoted as calling the facility “a danger to the entire region,” but Armenia later turned down the EU’s offer of a 200 million euro ($289 million) loan to finance Metsamor’s shutdown. The United States government, which has called the plant “aging and dangerous,” underwrote a study that urged construction of a new one.

    Plans to replace Metsamor after 2016—with a new nuclear plant at the same location—are under way. But until then, Armenia has little choice but to keep Metsamor’s turbines turning. As Armenians learned in the bone-chilling cold and dark days when the plant was closed down for several years, Metsamor provides more than 40 percent of power for a nation that is isolated from its neighbors and closed off from other sources of energy.

    via Is Armenia’s Nuclear Plant the World’s Most Dangerous?.

  • Parcel bomb attack on Swiss nuclear group

    Parcel bomb attack on Swiss nuclear group

    Reuters

    Two women were injured when a parcel bomb exploded in the offices of the lobby group Swissnuclear in the northern city of Olten yesterday. The Swissnuclear employees were taken to hospital with superficial burns and hearing damage.

    Switzerland has just suspended the approvals process for three new nuclear power stations so that safety standards can be reviewed in the light of the Fukushima disaster in Japan.

    Swissnuclear says it works to promote the safe and efficient use of nuclear power and represents utilities that run the nuclear plants which produce about 40 per cent of Swiss electricity.

    Olten is also home to the headquarters of the energy firm Alpiq, where about 50 Greenpeace protesters held a demonstration yesterday calling for the company to withdraw its application to build a nuclear plant.

    www.independent.co.uk,  1 April 2011

  • Forging Ahead on Nuclear Energy in Turkey

    Forging Ahead on Nuclear Energy in Turkey

    By SUSANNE GÜSTEN

    ISTANBUL — Struggling through throngs of shoppers on the pedestrian Istiklal Avenue last weekend, a couple of thousand marchers with their anti-nuclear placards did not seem to be getting anywhere. “No to nuclear plants,” the protesters chanted, banging on drums to make themselves heard. But few in the crowd swirling around them appeared to be listening.

    nuclearreactionhow2The tide may have turned against nuclear power elsewhere, following the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan, but Turkey is being swept along by a different current. Even as governments around the world scrambled to freeze or review their nuclear energy programs last week, Turkey announced the imminent start to construction of the first of its own nuclear plants, and experts say that a majority of Turks probably support the decision.

    The cornerstone for the Akkuyu nuclear power plant near Mersin on the Mediterranean coast could be laid in April or early May, said Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey following his talks in Moscow last week. Russia has agreed to build the plant under a $20 billion deal signed in May. A similar deal with Japan, signed in December, involves the construction of a second plant near Sinop on the Black Sea coast, while the location of a third proposed plant was undecided.

    It is a tricky decision to make, as Turkey is located in one of the most active earthquake regions in the world, and more than 90 percent of its territory is prone to earthquakes. The Akkuyu site in particular is close to a fault line, as the government concedes. Small tremors are registered in the region almost daily, and a quake measuring 6.2 on the Richter scale struck the nearby city of Adana in 1998.

    Still, Turkey is forging ahead with its nuclear plans in the wake of the Fukushima scare, “even though some environmentalists are doing their best to sabotage the project,” Mr. Erdogan said in Moscow, referring to doubts voiced after the tsunami in Japan, Turkish newspapers reported. “Any project can go wrong, you can’t just drop it because of that. Otherwise you shouldn’t be using gas bottles in your houses, and we shouldn’t have an oil pipeline passing through the country.”

    Risk was just a fact of life, agreed the environment minister, Veysel Eroglu, speaking in Ankara. “If you drive a car, you are taking a risk,” the Ihlas News Agency quoted him as saying.

    Nuclear experts on both sides of the debate are aghast at such comparisons.

    “I have never seen such ignorance about nuclear energy in my entire life,” Tolga Yarman, a nuclear scientist and professor at Okan University in Istanbul, wrote in an e-mail, adding that the government was “making it sound like nuclear explosions are chestnuts exploding on the heater.”

    Professor Yarman, who said he and his peers had believed in the safety of nuclear power production until recent events, called the government’s comments a “manifestation of nuclear hooliganism.”

    Ozgur Gurbuz, an energy specialist and anti-nuclear campaigner, said Mr. Erdogan’s remarks were proof that the government had no idea of the risks.

    “Nothing, absolutely nothing has changed in 25 years,” Mr. Gurbuz said Monday during an interview, referring to the Turkish government’s response to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, fallout from which hit Turkey’s Black Sea coast.

    According to a Greenpeace report published in 1996, Cahit Aral, the trade minister at the time of the Chernobyl meltdown, coaxed Turks to drink tea from the contaminated harvest, telling them that “a little radiation is good for you.” Mr. Aral, now 84, drank the tea on television to persuade compatriots to follow his example. The then-prime minister, Turgut Ozal, proclaimed that “radioactive tea tastes better,” while Kenan Evren, then president, claimed radiation was good for the bones.

    Even without a nuclear reactor, Turkey in 1999 rated a level 3 incident on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event scale, classified as “serious,” when a container of highly radioactive Cobalt-60 turned up at an Istanbul junkyard, Mr. Gurbuz said.

    “There is probably no institution in the world that should be kept as far away from a nuclear power plant as the Turkish Atomic Energy Institution,” the regulator charged with supervising nuclear material, he said. A plant run by the Turkish government and supervised by the institution “would be an incredible danger not only to Turkey, but to the whole world,” he added.

    Nevertheless, even President Abdullah Gul — who is normally more cautious and conciliatory than the prime minister — has weighed in on the nuclear plans. “Energy is an important motor of development and prosperity,” Mr. Gul told Turkish reporters last week during a trip to Kirikkale Province, just east of Ankara. He noted that Turkey depended on imports for much of its energy needs and could not meet the requirements of its rapidly expanding economy with alternative energies.

    “I think it would not be right for Turkey to suddenly renounce nuclear energy” because of Japan, Mr. Gul said. “Turkey is already lagging behind other countries in adopting nuclear energy.”

    The opposition, sensing an opening, has called for a referendum, but given the popularity of the government, a majority would be likely to support the nuclear plans, Mr. Gurbuz said.

    Environmental concerns are not high on the priority list of many Turks, as evidenced by a Green Party that has yet to muster branches in at least half of the country’s 81 provinces as a prerequisite to standing for election. Mr. Gurbuz, a co-founder of the party, blames the legacy of the 1980 military coup, which still hampers such organization in Turkey.

    Cengiz Aktar, a political scientist at Bahcesehir University in Istanbul, agreed that the government would probably win any referendum on its nuclear plans. “Turks are currently discovering the consumption society, just as Europeans did 30 or 40 years ago, they are happy to consume,” Mr. Aktar said by telephone. If the government emphasized that aspect in a referendum campaign, it might well win the vote. Still, the absence of open protest against the nuclear plans did not mean that Turks were completely unconcerned, Mr. Aktar said.

    “The way the government is advocating for the Russian deal in Akkuyu raises questions in people’s minds,” he said. “Why so eager, why so aggressive?”

    That question was echoed by Mr. Gurbuz: “Why could they not suspend construction for three months, like other countries?” he asked. “Why not even one single month?”

    One possible answer was offered by Taner Yildiz, the energy minister. “Turkey has set itself great economic goals for the 100th anniversary of the republic in 2023,” he said on the state-run Turkish Radio and Television channel. “We cannot reach those goals with renewable energies alone.”

    The New York Times

  • MP launches bid to halt nuclear power station building

    MP launches bid to halt nuclear power station building

    Martin Horwood

    West MPMinisters should halt plans for new nuclear power stations in the UK following the disaster in Japan, a West MP said yesterday.

    Cheltenham Liberal Democrat Martin Horwood has tabled a Commons motion that has attracted support from MPs of all parties.

    Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has already ordered a report from the Chief Nuclear Inspector on the implications for the UK of events at Fukushima power station.

    The Daily Press has reported how South West anti-nuclear campaigners want him to shelve plans for new reactors in the UK, including those proposed for Hinkley Point in Somerset and Oldbury in South Gloucestershire.

    Mr Horwood’s Early Day Motion, which applauds the courage and expertise of those working to make the Japanese power stations safe, welcomes Mr Huhne’s decision.

    But it adds: “Events in Fukushima underline the extreme dangers inherent in nuclear power, the relative resilience of a completely safe, decentralised and renewable energy supply and the inability of even the highest design and safety standards to protect us from unforeseen events.”

    The MPs are calling on Mr Huhne “to suspend Government’s plans for a new nuclear power programme”.

    Mr Horwood said: “Events in Fukushima are reminding everyone how dangerous nuclear energy can be.

    “As if the Japanese people weren’t suffering enough, their electricity supply has been disrupted, hundreds of thousands evacuated and anxiety spreading throughout the civilian population.

    “Unforeseen events do happen – even in this country – and Fukushima demonstrates how dependence on nuclear power can add to the crisis.”

    So far the EDM has been signed by MPs from five other parties, including high profile Tory environment campaigner Zac Goldsmith and Caroline Lucas, the sole Green MP.

    Meanwhile the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has launched an inquiry into UK research and development capabilities.

    Committee chairman Lord Krebs said: “Although this inquiry was conceived before the recent tragic events in Japan, this underlines the importance of ensuring that our research and development capabilities meet out future nuclear energy needs not just for generation capacity, but also for ensuring safety.”

    www.thisissomerset.co.uk, March 18, 2011